Time for national pathways overhaul

The problem with establishing provincial or ARC competition in Australia is that it will be unsustainable financially. In NZ, NPC is semi-professional, but because rugby is far and away the national sport in NZ, there is not as much competition for TV ratings and revenue and gate revenue. In Australia, you have A-League, AFL, NRL, NBL, cricket etc. Also, provinces in NZ have over 100 years of tradition, you cannot create that overnight in Australia. Eventhough NPC is not making much money, it will still be around in 20 years time, ie semi-professional, and the NZRU (as the author of the article points out) recognises that NPC is crucial to developing talent and for returning AB's, it is NZ's only competitive advantage over Australian rugby. So the NZRU will make sure it continues. Now, the ARC was pulled because it both unsustainable, and unpopular with fans. The only path for Australia is the current club rugby ie Randwick etc. No investor is going to invest in a club rugby team, in a country where there is such a cut throat competition for TV with so many different sports.

And then you are back to the will. The ARC was actually perfectly timed - it would have been in place for a couple of years when 1HD was desperate for feed, with the contract renewal for SH rugby up for renegotiation with News. It would have been the original end-game and the point at which there was a return on the investment (or at least a break even situation established). But they couldn't find a way to free up a couple of million a year out of the $90M budget, presumably because every cent of it was being spent on much more important things. So we are back to where we started, trying to sell something that doesn't exist and can't be demonstrated as having a market. It won't happen because it simply isn't on the ARU agenda. Their focus is entirely on the professional game and, as can be seen from how they are acting with the NSW juniors, they clearly see no difference from soccer where all of the next generation of talent can be identified by the age of 15 and there is no need for a development competition.

Invictus. How do you get the cash???? TV is the answer and the ITM cup is televised so there is your source for revenue. As one poster said before have it on Fox and get one of the digital channels to broadcast it like ABC One. I have heard time and again that people bemoan the lack of TV coverage of Rugby if you haven't got Pay you don't see it. How can you grow a sport that 70% can't see. The ABC digital is the way to go and if they broadcast the ITM as a NZ and Aust combination game lots would watch the game and improve the popularity of the sport. But for absolute financial gain you would want some commercial digital channel to take up the televising to get sponsorship etc

Two things are missing - the will and the cash. Nothing will change until sufficient amounts of both have been found.

Rus. I am one of those Kiwis now living in Australia. I still think the best option available and open to the Australian Rugby Union is to put 7 teams into the ITM cup. The Australian Stream could play each other once with 4 cross over games against the other 2 streams (11-games all up). Australia and New Zealand could have play offs individually for their own national champion and then the finals for the Australasian Champion. This would not upset New Zealand's unique Rugby Structure and allow Australia to develop some good up and coming talent just my opinion :) enjoy your day

Daniel I know a lot about New Zealand and South African Rugby. I eat Rugby. Although there are lots and lots of different diets and places to eat, fortunately I can’t eat all the places. I do know one thing though. The club I am involved in here in Perth has a fair amount of Kiwi’s playing for it and there are more coming. Work, lifestyle, money…I don’t know what it is, but I am thankful they are here as they play fantastic rugby. It would be nice to think they could earn a living here in Australia as it would be easier for them to go home from here as opposed to Europe. I guess we’ll find out what the Australia Rugby Union are thinking on Wednesday when Dingo, Rocky and Jo’no make their announcement! Whatever they decide it will mean more Rugby thank god. Good luck Russ

Mella. I don't think you understand the value or importance of RU in New Zealand. Currently New Zealand has 2 streams of 7 in its ITM cup that’s 14 provincial teams + another 10 in the Heartland Competition. That’s 24 teams covering the country - under each of those 24 teams is another 10 to 14 club sides that’s 240 clubs - Do you seriously expect New Zealand rugby to give up all its rugby playing history to satisfy Australian Rugby? We have enough problems trying to get all our rugby talent into 5 teams. What you’re suggesting gives Australia a better grounding in Rugby Union but does nothing for New Zealand, you would be asking New Zealand to sacrifice its history for the Australian Rugby Union. A better idea would be for Australia to pick 7 developing teams and enter that into the ITM cup - with 4 cross over against randomly picked with the 2 New Zealand streams, this would allow the best of Australia to go head to head with the best of New Zealand and also allow room for a true National Final - Champion in Australia - Hell if the NZRU is feeling generous Australian teams might even get to compete for the Ranfurly Shield. Thanks

How do you do it? There are some many different right ways to do it. Have the teams where the players are or take the players to the money, state, regional, tradition? I think teams should tender for a place in the competition. A conglomerate of clubs, a single club, whatever, nobody should make the decision for the entrant. Financially based teams could bring players in from South Africa and New Zealand as well. Yes there are players to burn in Sydney, but is there enough money - NSW Rugby is struggling financially now. That's why the ARU are taking some of their load Gary. This would also give an opportunity for players to get professional experience and professional organisation to have a go. Competition could run end of September through March - heat excuse is rubbish, night games, there are plenty of ovals with sufficient lighting. I'm not saying this is the right way, but George Smith has just picked up $3.3m to play Rugby in Japan, why should he get it for playing here in Australia? Is there the money? How do we know we've never tried? Football players are getting good money to come play in Australia and they are ex-England, ex-Italian, etc internationals...Why can't that happen in Rugby?

I think the ARU is too busy doing things that the NSWRU should be doing to worry about the big picture. Why for instance do they run the Development Officers in NSW? Surely that is the job of the NSWRU as it is elsewhere.

In that case why doesn't Super rugby just morph into a 10 team Australasian comp. Dont mean to offend our Kiwi friends but I think financially the best structure would actually be 6 Aussie teams and 4 Kiwi. NZ really has a population base for 4 teams, 2 from Auckland, Wellington plus Christchurch. The teams could still cover the whole country, like the Christchurch based team being called 'south island' as an example and playing some games in Dunedin/Invercargill. Aus could surely add a west Sydney team. Player wise the Aus teams would obviously need to sign a lot more Kiwi and PI players. If you think its unbalanced look at the NRL, NZ provides what 30% of playing talent but only has one team. It would require NZ officials to be pragmatic about the large and growing economic gap between the two countries, the potential for growth really is in Aus.

I'm not so sure football united. I'm pretty sure the Rebels chose the name 'Melbourne' for political and sponsorship reasons.

By the way - 15 former union reps playing in the NYC (of which there are 16 clubs, with a squad of 25-30 each) isnt really that big of a deal. Im a league fan, and want to see league dominate as much as possible, but I am surprised that the number is so low. I keep hearing how league pillages the union junior ranks. Thats less than one per club.

Yes, I think you are correct. The ego of those running the game dictates. As you allude Super rugby has a limited future. The South Africans gain little by having their teams play out of their time zone and vice-versa the Australasians. What replaces Super Rugby could be good as there is so much immigration and cultural interchange between Aust and NZ. Rugby needs to be quick though, won't be long before it gets sucked by the financial and cultural AFL jugganaut. I've no idea if NZ will assimilate to Aussie Rules- its the only Australasian code making money so it may be a case of last code standing.

Australian rugby really has some major problems that aren't going to be solved overnight, or in a month, or a year. Which is why it is frustrating bordering on furious feelings that the ARU doesn't appear, at least on the surface, to be acting with any haste in these matters. Cricket Australia is introducing the T20 eight team Big Bash League (BBL) because among other things, they realise the urgent need to provide more players with an income stream within cricket. Six states each employing about 25 players (150 total) isn't considered enough professional players to satisfy the ambitious & urgent young men in a hurry. This figure is about equal (more or less) with the number of players in Australian rugby union earning a reasonable professional income. By comparison, the 16 NRL teams employ about 25 players each (400 total). the 8 A-League teams employ about 23 players each (184 total) but keeping in mind there is a similar or higher number of Australian professionals plying their trade overseas. The big numbers are with AFL. Each of the 18 (including GWS) AFL teams employ about 40 players (720 total). In addition, each club seems to have between 6-10 rookies (108-180 total), which I presume are also on the payroll. This is what rugby union is up against. The premier clubs are paying their best players money to keep them interested. But then the 2nd XV start demanding some money or they'll look elsewhere. Basically, the Sydney Shute Shield clubs, & perhaps also the Brisbane Hospital Cup clubs are caught up in a spiraling financial blowout that they & rugby can't sustain. Australian rugby needs a combined super rugby & ARC structured comp of 8-10 teams, each employing 35 players. That's 280-350 professional players. That should it for at least 10-15 years. Of course, the timeframe depends on well the ARU manages its affairs moving forward. But the immediate twin problems facing Australian rugby are a lack of total participant players, & a lack of total professional players. The ARU claims the first can't be progressed because of a lack of finances, & the second can't be progressed because of a lack of finances. So things have to change. The overall national domestic structures need re-jigging. The most unpopular part of this, which the ARU is beginning slowly to implement, is that what little money there is in the bucket, needs to be peeled back from some (the professional players), & redistributed to develop the game. This is unpopular but absolutely necessary. If the ARU doesn't begin trying to get more youth to play the game, then the game will be stuffed. Like I said, there are some serious problems facing Australian rugby, & unfortunately, they all need addressing simultaneously. It's like trying to heal a sick person. One illness can be handled okay, sometimes two simultaneous illnesses can be handled okay. But once you start dealing with multiple illnesses all at once, it can often prove fatal.....

I wish the ARU would give us some guidance about their plans for development. We seem to only get a glimpse when someone bad mouths the ARU in the press and Growden writes a piece defending the ARU. Who knew that NSW went from 1.5 development officers last year to 7 this year? Who knew the academy sides in the East of Australia were going to play Fiji, Tonga, Samoa as part of their Pacific Nations Cup? Why isn't this communicated better? Does the ARU have a plan for development below Super Rugby, are they looking to expand the academy set up into a fully fledge comp? Just tell us so we don't think the Rebels have to rely on an import quota for the forseeable future. What development at professional and amateur level is going on?

. I don't want another silly competition for players to switch between. club teams should remain independent from top tier teams and players should be in their teams jersey on the field, even in a reserve grade. Also academies are the only possibility for non traditional states as clubs here in VIC(and probs in WA) have no money or depth to play at national level. Market the academies to the public, include them in the Pacific Rugby Cup, there are six other domestic teams in this comp that would provide good opposition. on your piece sheek, i tooi think state teams are going to go the way of the dodo, i think rebels chose to identify themselves as melbourne rather than Victoria in anticipation of this. my only issue is Adelaide shouldn't get a team, they are just not a rugby town at all and i doubt they will ever be.

Bob I agree. You could build quite a strong competition. It would be to the benefit of both Unions. Pride will likely get in the way however. THe one thing I'd really like about it would be it power in the SANZAR bidding process. When SA make noises about living to twist things there way with such a championship installed we could call their bluff. If they did leave we can concentrate on the TT Championship.

It costs no more to fly from Auck-Syd than Auck-Dunedin and Invercargill. You can't have a prefessional competition operating out of centres of 50-100K people especially given NZ's poor economic circumstances. As such the ITM Cup is financially unviable. NZ rugby seems stuck in the past run by 40-50 yo males hankering for the return of the old NPC. Problem is the world has changed. These days you need large amounts of corporate sponsors and they want media exposure. I would have a ten team comp with five from each country. You would get a pretty good standard even without a lot of AB's or Wallabies. The ex pats kiwis in Syd/Melb and Bris would love it.

You'd have to get the clubs to agree which will be no mean feature. However, if you could. It would be nice to see three teams from Sydney. You could have Sydney (east) a franchise comprised of Randwick, Uni, Easts and Souths. Playing predominantly out of Coogee Oval as having played at all four grounds Coogee has the best setup. North Harbour with Gordon, Norhs, Manly and Warringah. Once again I'd prefer Rat Park as its closer to the action than North Sydney oval but either would do fine. And finally Wests with Parra, Harbour, Penrith and Eastwood. They's likely play out of TG Milner but a nice neutral venue like St Mary's would be preferential. Though in saying that, it would be nice to see Concord get a bit of action. Brisbane can have both North and South, while VIC, WA and ACT should initally have 1 team each. If in the future numbers call for another than so be it as long as backers can be found. Also, if the country teams can find a means to compete then they would be welcome. Working off a franchise basis, it would take alot of the costs off the Unions.

I think the franchise idea is a good one. Each club raises the finance and some sort of league situation set up. There seems to be an obsession that there "has to be" a state based system. Why not simply a league, no matter where the team comes from or where they obtain their players from. States would be able to have contracts with the players regardless of which team they played for, so that the players could graduate to the state side as and when. OK, so there are details to sort out, but it would be better than the present situation.